tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 19, 2014 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
failed and zoological attempt to justify actions that cannot be justified. when this counsel accurately describe the referendum as invalid, only is able hands rose in opposition. declared thatsel the referendum cannot form the basis for altering these out as of crimea, -- the status of crimea, only a single hands rose stop the national legal status of crimea has not changed. a thief can steal property, but that does not or the right of ownership. in closing, let me emphasize again what russia has done is wrong as a matter of law, runs a matter of history, wrong as a matter of policy, and dean driscoll's what happens in crimea cannot be recognized as valid. we must stand together and deny
recognition and impose consequences for this illegal act. we must be very clear that what happens in crimea cannot be repeated in other parts of ukraine stop thank you. >> i think you and i give the floor to the representative of july -- chile. >> thank you matter president. byappreciate the statements the secretary-general. the council is meeting at a sensitive moment. a referendum was held in crimea which has been judged as unconstitutional. it has been seen as undermining the territorial integrity of the
ukraine. it is a sovereign state any member of the united nations. there has been worried in the international community. contributed to a worsening of the situation until i -- chile. we must respect the sovereignty and independence of ukraine. it keeps with the charter of the united nations and international law. of a ukrainian soldier in an assault in crimea has increased tensions in the country. they feel the depth of the crisis and it needs to be stopped. theas presented by assistant secretary-general of the united nations. we observed a growing
deterioration in the situation. chile believes that it is necessary to strengthen a solution through diplomatic means. we endorsed the efforts of this organization and most especially those efforts undertaken by the secretary-general of the united nations. that theuests observers from the oe fc -- oesc that entry into crimea was not recognized. we want to have timely and truthful information to assess the human rights situation on the ground. the situation of ethnic minorities in crimea is all concerned, especially de-tartar minority. they have started moving to other areas of ukraine. the internally displaced are a clear signal of the worsening crisis.
we must strengthen the call of the international community to seek a negotiated solution. it is indispensable that the council attributes to maximum moderation on both sides. it must call for both sides to avoid unilateral action, which might further escalate the crisis. to look fortime constructive participation in an inclusive process that will guarantee rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the respect of human rights. thank you very much. >> i think the representative of chile for that statement. >> thank you madam president. the assistant secretary-general for his briefing as well as their
devoted activities in ukraine. is deeplyic of korea concerned over the recent developments in ukraine. the republic of korea will not recognize the referendum in crimea, nor the annexation of crimea to russia. we call on russia and the crimean authority to refrain from these hasty actions. we urge them to enter into meaningful discussions with the ukrainian government and the international community with a view for a peaceful political solution. implication that any boundary alterations might have on existing international order must be taken into account. space exists for a negotiated way forward. in this connection, we greatly value the ongoing mediation efforts by the international community, particularly those of
the secretary-general. we look forward to the continued role of secretary-general ban ki-moon in this regard. we reiterate our firm support sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine. is achieved by international agreement, including the u.n. charter and the 1994 budapest memorandum. it is also vital to protect the right to all persons in ukraine, especially those of minorities. the future of ukraine should be explored and decided upon only by the will and aspirations of all ukrainians themselves, without any intervention or influenced by outside or says. thank you. >> i think the representative from the republic of korea. i give the floor to the representative from argentina.
secretary.u madam i would like to begin by thanking the deputy secretary-general and the assistant secretary-general for human rights. i would like to thank them for their respective reports. i would like to thank the permanent representative of ukraine is participation. inentina is following events the ukrainian situation with great concern. the argentine delegation reiterates the fundamental importance of adherence to the principles to which we have all subscribed as members of the united nations. unavoidablea, it is to respect the supremacy of the principal of territorial integrity. there is sovereignty and territorial independence of all
states. in accompanying the direct resolution put to a vote, i said that this is a principle which my country has supported throughout its history, even before the existence of the united nations. it will continue to do so unwaveringly. does not take a stance on the internal developments within ukraine which led to the current institutional crisis. it is our understanding that all countries must refrain from intervening militarily, economically, or politically in the internal affairs of other states. thereby they are adapting their actions and observance of international law. theyseech that
unconditionally observe human rights and international law. the rights of all minorities must be respected. whether they are ethnic, linguistic, religious minorities. we are concerned by past violence and current violence. we are also concerned about the possibility of this worsening. we regret that despite repeated , the rhetoric of confrontation has not been abandoned it is incumbent upon all of us refrain from implementing descent that dissent. levels --each record direct levels -- threat levels for international peace.
finally, we do the mediation efforts -- support the median 8 -- support the mediation efforts undertaken by the united nations cap. we understand his situation cannot be resolved through unilateral action. we stress that any action should be avoided which would further complicate the situation where what further out of reach a peaceful and political solution to this crisis. thank you very much. >> i think the representative rahm argentina. i give the floor to the permanent representative of her want to. microphone for rwanda, please. >> this shows the seriousness of
the situation. it also shows the commitment of the security council for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. that thank you secretary-general and the assist in. -- assistant further briefings on the political situation in ukraine. rwanda is still concerned about the prevailing rhetoric in ukraine as well as the continuing frustrations and violence in cities of eastern ukraine. something needs to be done. that begins with a commitment from all parties with a sense of urgency. we want to avoid further escalation of the situation.
recommend the role of the u.n. in this regard. we look forward to interacting with the russian federation in ukraine. we hope to these visits will help all parties involved as other delegations to find political and diplomatic solution. that should benefit the rainy and people -- ukrainian people and all people of the region. employment of a ukraine, we will extend full cooperation to the team. we indeed believe that only an independent party would be able to objectively establish the alleged human rights violations.
rolando has been calling for constructive missions to determine the situation. we will continue working for a solution. u.n., the eu, the and the russian federation at the international level. inclusive talks between all ukrainian parties. that would ensure the full participation of all communities in the country. it would protect the minorities. call oneantime, we ukrainians to respect rule of law. they must exercise maximum restraint. diplomatic,void economic, political, and other conflict that would escalate the situation.
stresslusion, let me that the council is the only body in charge of maintaining international peace and security. it must work towards restoring able to order to be defend sovereignty and integrity states thater member states. >> i think the representative of her want of for that statement. we will go to the representative from australia. you madam president. thank you to the deputy secretary-general. thank you to the assistant secretary-general for his for or. as we know, five days ago, the council sought to adopt a resolution reaffirming fundamental principles of international law including the
united nations charter. the resolution was opposed by wednesday, russia. -- wednesday, russia. -- one state, russia. the views of the broader international community remain clear. we must de-escalate the crisis and engage in dialogue towards a peaceful resolution. the fact is that russia has steadfastly ignored this message. crimeamoved to annexed on the basis of a referendum that was unlawful. it was carried out well russian forces have control over crimea. signature of a's decree recognizing crimean independence and they reported treaty and the presidential approval of the draft bill on the annexation do not validate the referendum. nor do they provide any
legitimate basis for russia's acquisition of part of the territory of ukraine. russia's actions are a clear violation of the fundamental runcible's of international law. that was contained in the resolution they vetoed. respect territorial integrity. remain the international community's touchdowns and the international community will not recognize russia's annexation of crimea. russia has further strengthened its military control of crimea in recent days, dramatically escalating tensions. incidents involving the use of armed force in the occupation of military forces and the killing of a ukrainian soldier significantly increase the stakes. a descent into conflict is more likely. the immediate
meeting of ministers of defense. the budapest memorandum provide security guarantees to ukraine to prevent further escalation of the crisis. we urge russia to respond positively to this request. ukraine's deputy prime minister was sent to crimea to de-escalate the crisis. it is crucial that this dialogue takes place. the secretary to travel to moscow and kiev. we urge all parties to engage in constructive dialogue. in pursuing this current course of action, russia has chosen a path towards isolation. they undermine their own standing and credibility with other states. it increasingly close is a threat to security and stability in the region. inevitably there are consequences. in addition to measures put in place i others, the australian government announced that it
would impose targeted measures against individuals who have been instrumental in the russian threat to direct -- territorial integrity in ukraine. we have not taken the steps lightly. we have done so with regret. we have urged russia to engage in diplomatic dialogue to resolve the crisis. an important first step for russia is to recognize the need four support on the ground. we urge russia to engage in a monitoring mission in ukraine. it is a matter of priority. given the obligations raised by about russian-speakers in crimea and elsewhere in ukraine, the delegation should continue to be independently assessed. the osce high commission found no evidence of violations or
threats to russian speakers in crimea during their own recent visit. the assistant secretary-general chme on a bench -- simonovi has just reported that the violations he learned of are neither widespread or systematic. the tartar community feel he -- fragments. --threatened. a tartar activists has been tortured and murdered. civil activists are being abducted. these violations must sees. human rights violating -- overseeing is essential. there is continued deployment. such monitoring must take place in crimea. to conclude, we are obviously at a critical point. ukraine, and the integrity of the region. all member states have a direct
interest in the preservation of order. as we have underlined today, this crisis must be resolved easily through diplomatic means -- peacefully through diplomatic means. we must respect ukraine's dignity and territorial integrity. russia must find a solution. it is not too late for them to turn from the path of provocation and isolation that they have taken. thank you. glad i think the representative of australia. i give the floor to the representative from china. president i would like to think them for their briefings. china has followed closely the situation in ukraine. the security council has taken up the question of ukraine repeatedly. position onated his
the question is concerned. we respect independent sovereignty and that has been the consistent position of china. adopted a just and objective approach. we shall continue to promote peace and play a constructive role. china has the forward its own proposal to address the ukrainian crisis. it is as follows. joined bytional team all parties concerned should be put in place as soon as possible to explore possibilities and address the situation. pending that, no action should be taken to further exacerbate tensions. the international financial institutions should explore. possibilities.
view that a political solution should be found for the crimean issue under a framework of law and order. all parties concerned should exercise restraint and refrain from action that could cause the situation to deteriorate. the international community should make constructive efforts to pay attention. china supports ban ki-moon in his trip today to conduct mediation. we hope the international community will make constructive efforts to defuse tension. thank you. >> i give the floor to the united kingdom. >> thank you madame president. i think the secretary-general for his briefing.
we welcome his intent to travel to moscow and kiev this week. we hope that his visit will help to persuade president putin to step back and de-escalate and to fulfill russia's obligations under the u.n. charter. u.n. monitors should have full access to crimea and they should engage in dialogue with ukraine. novich forink mr. simo his briefing. it is inexcusable that he was denied access to crimea. we have gathered information by other means. his report on the extent of human rights violations is a serious concern. cases of arbitrary arrest and detention, disappearances and population displacement, directly contradict russia's from -- claims to the contrary. we share concern over the human rights violations that took place under the previous ukrainian government.
we welcome the new ukrainian their request for u.n. monitors to investigate these concerns. they have a commitment to reflect ukraine's rich diversity. we urge the rapid deployment of u.n. monitors across the country. madame president, 14 council members underlined their commitment to ukrainian unity. to distancerge itself from the referendums that you take in the next a. our aim is to avoid further escalation and to ask russia to heed the views of the international community. russia has rejected that message. it rejected it on saturday by that carryesolution the overwhelming support of his counsel. following the referendum, they have outlined their disregard for the escalating by announcing
new laws to incorporate crimea into the russian federation. the representative of russia spoke about this process being in compliance with international law. interference,e and through democratic process. it is hard to know which of these assertions is the biggest lie. sunday's referendum was a mockery of democratic act as. --was illegal under the con ukrainian constitution. it met none of the oac standards for democratic elections. the gatekeeper will crimea no option to vote for the status quo. neither does referendum nor the succession of increasingly contradictory legal arguments before i russia can conceal the stark reality of its actions. russia had annexed part of the sovereign territory of an independent u.n. member states
three use of military force. not to be bound by any of its previous obligations or commitments in respect to ukraine, including the 1994 budapest memorandum, on the grounds that it does not regard the new government in ukraine as legitimate. treaties and international agreements between states, not governments. a change in government and kiev does not absolve russia of international obligations. we areresident, witnessing the illegal behavior of a large country is regarding its neighbors, international law, and unilaterally adjusting borders. yesterday in a speech, president heart,aid that in the the conscience of the people, crimea has always been an unalienable part of russia.
that because add crimea is a strategic territory, it needs to be under the stable certainty -- sovereignty of russia. after weeks of denial, russia's we'll -- real motives are revealed. there are plenty of lessons from history about where this kind of extraordinary logic leads. one only has to think back to the 1930's to recognize the danger of a complacent international response when such behavior occurs. system and the framework of international law is that it embodies was the response of our forefathers to a global conflict that resulted in lawless aggression. designedd nations was to provide security to us all by preventing subjugation of anyone. interest in have an upholding international
frameworks and the norms that the u.n. represents both top russian action started to doubt the credibility of this international order. that is why should be clearly condemned and why russia must now face further consequences for its actions. president, russia cannot have impunity to disregard international law under the u.n. charter. even at this late stage, russia has the option to change course, to heed the message of the international community, and to engage in dialogue with ukraine. wet week and his counsel, all heard the ukrainian prime minister offered to open up such a dialogue with russia. this basic step has been rejected. ukraine ison in serious. the threshold was passed when the ukrainian servicemen was killed.
it occurred by russian allied forces. there are credible reports of russian provocation across the region. we praise the continuing and remarkable restraint of the ukrainian military. but is only underlying how close we are to a further dramatic and elation. this issue extends far beyond ukraine and its borders. the issue before us is about respect for bilateral and international treaties. it is about upholding the u.n. charter and international law. these are the frameworks on which we all rely. the frameworks russia's challenging. we have a collective responsibility to defend what we work so hard to build over the last 70 years. i thank you. >> i think the representative of
the united kingdom. i'm going to give the floor to the representative of lithuania stop class thank you madame president. i would also like to thank the secretary-general further briefings. craftedday a hastily illegal referendum took place in crimea. regionerendum held the cut off from the mainland by another country's own forces. ofer a heavy barrage anti-ukrainian propaganda, representatives of the oac and united nations with outstanding experience in human rights. right, were prevented from entering crimea. the referendum occurred in a record short period of time.
not a single credible international observer with if theo verify ascertain referendum was free and fair. these facts alone are sufficient to raise alarms about the polity of the referendum. it is fraudulent. representatives from major international organizations were prevented from entering crimea. over 100 independent referendum well-established hard-line nationalist and nazi sympathizers. quotes --and his lama anti-semites and islamaphobes. they were able to observe and ascertain that allegedly the referendum was there. the indigenous tartar population for whom crimea is the only
place they call home, and who endured a massive deportation by stalin, is still alive. they call to boycott the election and were denied. how about their right to self-determination? the so-called referendum is nothing but an undisguised landgrab. is a blatant violation of international raw -- law but russia. a country who should've have been a guarantor of ukrainian sovereignty, as per the 1994 budapest memorandum, gave a responsibility to protect sovereignty and territorial integrity. sunday's referendum is a fraudulent sham. give ae purpose was to pretense for illegal annexation of ukraine. that.nia calls to reject
we should not recognize the illegal joining of early rain to the russian federation. we support the principles of the united nations charter. sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity of the rain. -- ukraine. it was carried out under false pretext. this aggression against crimea is carried out by pro-moscow militants. they have repeated human rights violations. they have shut down media outlet and press. there have been detentions and disappearances. there are routine attacks against journalists. furthermore, the outcome of this infringem will further on the rights of large numbers of crimea inhabited who have to make hard renting choices --
heartrending choices. they fear for their families and their features. one country of her grading part of a neighboring country. it is a profoundly disturbing signal to everyone that territories are up for grabs. international norms guaranteeing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of state can be rewritten by force. we'll be next? i thank you. i think the representative from lithuania. i give the floor to the jordan.tative from >> thank you madame president. jordan wishes to express its events ofollowing the the crisis in the ukraine and especially in the crimea. and following the fact that efforts taken to achieve
peaceful solutions have unfortunately not been successful to date. we would like to reiterate the need to protect the sovereignty of ukraine. territorial integrity, as well as the lyrical status -- political status. all territories, including crimea follow under ukrainian sovereignty. this is a fact that is recognized by the international community. this is something that is governed by international law. and the united nations charter. the charter is further complemented by relevant international treaties such as the budapest memorandum and the treaty of friendship and partnership between ukraine and the russian federation dated 1997. reaffirm the fact
that the instrument which governs any region of ukrainian and the constitution, which guarantees territorial integrity and unity. it covers all regions and all parts of the country. for this reason, it is unacceptable to split off part of a country. the international community effort to tackle this crisis. they should probably parties to reach a solution which would protect their legitimate interest and rights. in a return of nb&t ukrainian control. we must also come up with a necessary guarantee that would
protect the interests of these various side. bean agreement were to concluded, it would put an end to the crisis. it should include the guarantees of rights in ukraine. nations to united use their offices to come up with a mechanism which would launch dialogue and make progress. clearly the time has come to stand up in an international context to achieve this. the time has come to work with all parties on the ground any time has come to cooperate with the various monetary observation groups which could be deployed to verify the situation in ukraine.
the various parties of the should refrain from messieurs leading to escalation. they should give way to reconciliation. they should work with international organizations within a framework. such efforts would spare the world from negative consequences of this crisis. -- and its impact on international peace and security. >> i would like to give the floor to the representative of china. >> thank you so much. i would like to convey my gratitude for the briefing. i would like to think the representative of ukraine for his statement. chad is alarmed that what is
taking place in ukraine. including in crimea. we note, with a great deal of concern, that despite the repeated call from the international community and the security council, the territorial integrity and sovereignty of ukraine has been undermined. this process continues. we reaffirm yet again that we of committed to the idea unity and territorial integrity for ukraine. we think they should comply with the basic principles of the united nations charter. like all relevant parties to give way to a peaceful settlement. we want to forge direct dialogue between the two parties to find
a political solution. i thank you. class i think they were presented at chad. i will now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of luke sommer -- luxembourg. i would like to thank the assistant secretary-general. thank thelso like to permanent representative of ukraine to the united nations. we cannot repeat it enough. the referendum organized on the 16th of march in crimea was contrary to the constitution of ukraine, which provides for indivisible and unviable -- inviolable territory in ukraine. there has been no legitimacy in
it. crimea has been occupied and cut off from the rest of crimea -- ukraine. the freedom of the media has been seriously impeded. representatives from the united nations and the oecd were refused access to crimea. the international community could under no circumstances recognize the results of this unconstitutional and illegal referendum. the international community could not recognize messieurs dear to annexing crimea to the russian federation. pleased with the very large convergence of views on this issue. russia onertaken by ukrainian territory is a flagrant violation of international law, specifically the charter of the united
nations. to commitmentsr undertaken by russia in the contents of the budapest memorandum as in the context of the treaty of friendship and partnership and cooperation. it was signed the thing russia and ukraine. luxembourg is deeply concerned about the increase in tensions caused by the presence of russian armed forces in crimea. urgent to defuse the de-escalationtary starting with the immediate withdrawal of russian armed forces to their permanent stations from before the crisis. we are pleased to the composer and restraint shown by the ukrainian authorities given the violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their country.
the death of a training officer, killed yesterday by a bullet during the attack on the sevastopol military base concerns us. indicatesormation that attacks were launched against ukrainian armed forces bases, specifically the ukrainian naval base in crimea. smart mightext, any ignite the powder cake. to resolve this crisis, we believe the united nations has a role to play in cooperation with the oese. we regret that it was not possible for the assistant secretary-general for human rights to go to crimea. mr.simonovich's presentation tends to confirm observations from two weeks ago. reason invokedin
by russia to legitimize its threats thatved allegedly exists against the rights of the russian-eating communities in crimea. it proves to be unfounded. it is not an action of the ukrainian authorities. military escalation from russia has gone along with the climate of impunity. might greatly prefer the balance that exists among different communities which today have lived peacefully with each other. we commend the efforts of the high commissioner for human rights to deploy observers. situationo follow the of human rights, these observers
will establish the facts and report objectively in order to put an end to unfounded allegations geared towards exacerbating tensions. we hope that this team will soon be operational and that it will be able to go into premia and eastern regions of ukraine. ideas, we hopee that the present of the international community will be reinforced as soon as possible by the establishment of a special observer mission. it's establishment should not be delayed. generally speaking, we encourage the united nations to get involved in the crisis involving ukraine and crimea. we applaud the secretary-general's trip to moscow and kiev in the coming days. they have not yet borne fruit.
nonetheless, diplomatic efforts must be continued intensively to come to a solution that respects the little independent and sovereignty and unity and territorial integrity of ukraine stop i resume my functions as president of the council. the representative of the russian renovation bass federation has asked for the or to make another statement. let's think about president. >> thank you madam president. haveber of colleagues unfortunately discussed in an excessive way. this starts with a reference to tolstoy chekhov and finished by having let us all down to the level of tabloid press. it is unacceptable to listen to these insults to our country.
the delegation from the united states of america ex ex are operation in the security council on other issues. they must understand this clearly. thank you. back i think the representative from the russian federation. the representative from ukraine has the floor for another statement. >> thank you madam president. i would like to thank you personally for convening this meeting. i would like to thank all members of the security council for inviting me to take part. the deputying to secretary-general or the briefing. i would like to extend my gratitude to all of you.
thank you for acknowledging the legitimacy of the referendum in crimea stop -- crimea . i would like to make a number of comments regarding a few of the elements contained in this event given by mcauley from the russian federation. it is complex and unpleasant to make comments regarding a mistake made by our russian colleagues. it is very difficult to make comments on what is blatantly all. you are placed in a situation where you are trying to justify yourself. regarding the freedom of expression of information ukraine, do you know what the differences between freedom of expression in ukraine and access
to information in the russian federation? well, all of the webcast of the security council are broadcast in ukraine on all channels. not everything that was heard here today will sound pleasant to the years of ukrainian. there are many recommendations which will hurt here and which contain critical elements, but we are ready to listen. and the onlyle things that are heard in your media are your people. the -- a, i met with woman's in geo. they participate in a woman's forum. one of the women from odessa and one of them from minsk. all of them speak russian.
me, turned to me and asked how can the whole world's watching what he does on tv, behold such lies? what could i answer to them? the means justify the ends? that is probably the answer. me to makeehooves that statement. the russian said a decision by the ukrainian authorities yesterday to allow our military in crimea to use weapons for self-defense. following the fact that yesterday, one of our soldiers was killed. today, we heard that -- they are
raising their weapons against their fellow countrymen. the feeling one is left with is that ukraine is the one which launches the attack by bringing its forces in, rather than the troops that three weeks ago russia deployed throughout the sovereign territory of ukraine. beginning of the orthodox easter. a time when believers work together. i believe there has been an excessive amount of cynicism. ukraine keeps saying that we are ready for dialogue. request forith our to engagen colleagues in bilateral agreements.
we invited all guarantors under the budapest memorandum to a meeting. it was provisioned by the budapest memorandum. the russian federation is confused. we are ready to have dialogue. can acknowledge the recent propositions from the russian federation. it is disappointing. these are not the propositions. these are ultimatums. ukraineatums about how should build his future. we do not like ultimatums. the over interference and optimistic affairs -- in our domestic affairs, that we would like a dialogue. that we will have some
positive developments from this meeting in moscow and kiev. i thank you all for your support. representativehe of ukraine for that statement. therepresentative of russian federation has asked before for another statement -- should be floor for another statement. hear back not want to from a ukrainian colleagues. i do not think there will be a link to the russian. i have two comments to make. what cynicism? attempting to provoke a conflict by shooting at both sides? my colleague is referring to an alleged attack on a ukrainian base. there has been no attack on any base. there weren't even any russian holders present.
they were unarmed and wearing bulletproof jackets. they were members of self-defense forces. the building was very close to their. they started shooting and killed one person on each side. the leaders in kiev came up with a statement. a needid that there is to shoot against russian soldiers. this is cynicism. real cynicism. cynicism is what we saw on the maidan. authorities shot at all sides. they killed as many people as possible. they fired on the crowd. everyone thought, where did the fire come from? well-trained snipers came from the headquarters of the so-called common.. that's commandant. know why my ukrainian colleague refers to this as an
ultimatum. discussing how to extricate ourselves from the crisis in ukraine. visionided them with a of how we can extricate ourselves from the crisis in ukraine to make sure the whole region feel secure. proposal is in thatng with the agreement there needs to be a constitutional process in which all regions feel that their rights are being defended within the framework of the ukrainian state. this was an ultimatum presented to kiev. stand ready to continue this dialogue. madam president, thank you. i think the representative of the russian federation. the representative from france have asked for the four. >> madam president, i do not think we can they anything here
and allow the representative of the russian federation to tell us that proposals were made to -- it's simple. what's mine is mine, was yours is mine. that is ukrainian sovereignty stop that is the russian proposal. they have been repeating the they are ready to listen to anything, but crimea is finished. let's be clear. it is not based on that that we can have a dialogue. a dialogue founded on international legality. we did not say no to the russian proposal. we are simply saying no to any proposal which amounts to trying to acknowledge the taxation of crimea. that is it. that annexation of crimea. that is it. it is simple. it includes the territorial integrity of ukraine.
>> i give the floor to the russian federation. feelingleft with the that there is something in our proposal that her friend holly does not like. that is the impression that french colleague does not like. that is the impression i am left with. we are discussing it with secretary of state kerry. we discussed in great detail. you tabled your document and we tabled hours. what is unusual about all of this? i do not see anything unusual in all of this. if there's something you do not like, let it down and ethical .op -- discuss it this is standard diplomatic process. >> i think the representative of the russian federation or that statement. there are no further request for the floor. the security council has concluded the president state of this item on the agenda.
the meeting is adjourned. >> this meeting is going on. a tweet: russian forces have illegally seized the military base in crimea. john kerry sought to reassure nato allies -- john biden sought to reassure nato allies that we are in this with you. he spoke after russia's president declared ukraine's crimea peninsula four of russia. ukraine is not part of nato. we will be live with a discussion on u.s.-russia relations. that is at 5:00 p.m. eastern. two former national security advisers offer their thoughts.
you will hear from someone who served under president carter and someone who served under president ford. >> welcome to the center for strategic and international studies. a remarkable panel lined up for tonight. we are so glad that you joined us for a conversation about russia, a very timely conversation. i would like to think -- thank rob schieffer and the public -- and his partnership with tcu for bringing together this dialogue. let's have a big hand for tcu. [applause] none of this would be possible without the generosity and support of the stock rose foundation. -- stave rose foundation. we are so appreciative of them for everything they do for us. -- to give ao do
particular welcome to the participants of the forum, which concludes herewith to public panels tomorrow morning. they spent the last three days in williamsburg, colonial williamsburg of course, and discussing the future of the european union, the latest event in the ukraine, and one of our participants tonight, roger cohen, who is here on a stage with us, has been participating with them and that william -- williamsburg conference. we thank him for all of his help. to say ton, i want the trustees on the stage, welcome. mrs. carla hills and her husband, mr. rod hills, as well as judge webster. without further ado, please join me in welcoming bob schieffer, who has little show called "face the nation," which is number one on sundays. bob. [applause]
>> andrew told me that they had to cut off invitations at 600 for this. this is far and away the largest group we have ever had. thank you all. and i know why you are here. this is one of the best panels we have ever gotten in here at the same time in the same place. thank you all for coming. just to get it going, we're going to talk about russia, obviously, with the two men that i'm proud to say are not just long-time friends, but at veriest times over the 45 years that i've been in washington, they have been very good sources for me. [laughter] sometimes on the record, sometimes maybe not. dr. brezinski and general scope rocked -- general scop
roger: ofwell as the "new york times ear cup -- of the "new york times." burzynski that mr. was a senior advisor of the president and held many other receipt just foreign-policy positions. -- prestigious foreign-policy positions. was a military assistant to richard nixon and deputy assistant to national security affairs during the ford .nd nixon administration that was with henry kissinger, right? clicks yes. >> and he holds the medal of freedom from 1993. queen elizabeth made him an honorary knight of the british empire. and roger cohen has been a
foreign correspondent of the "new york times" for more than a decade. he now writes a column for the times. he is an author of several books on foreign policy and also a biography of norman schwarzkopf. it is hard to know where to start this discussion, but let me just start the discussion. is this the new cold war? why don't we start with you, dr. brezinski. don't know fore sure, but it is beginning to look that way. it may not end up that way, but it is beginning to look that way. in fact, if i could just take two minutes, i would like to do something in which probably most of the people have not -- most of the people here have not done, namely, sites and experts from putin's speech. it is worth reading the speech in full. it is what he says about ukraine more generally.
in that speech he says, among other things, at ukraine -- let me get my clippings here. ukraine benefited from the bolshevik revolution by obtaining large sections of the historical south of russia. thatn effect, is positing ukraine's territory is invalid. when the president of ukraine asked that the borders be a limited -- be eliminated, russia agreed to it on the favor that there was an assumption that ukraine would remain a good neighbor. thever, this is not how situation developed. he also goes on to say in the same speech that it is also obvious that there is no urgent amid executive authority in the ukraine now, nobody. that is a rather strange thing
to be saying about a neighboring country. he assures us in his speech that russian armed forces never entered crimea. which is kind of periods, because we have the impression that somebody did. -- which is kind of curious come up because we have the impression that somebody did. and then he goes on to say, that we understand that our western partners prefer not to be guided by national law -- international law in practical policy, but the rule of the gun. and that we understand what is happening is that these actions are aimed against her ukraine and russia and against eurasian integration. and he also as, let me conclude that we have border declarations -- we have heard declarations from key as about ukraine soon joining nato. let me say, quite frankly, that it pains our hearts to see what is happening in the ukraine at the moment, to see the people suffering and their and certainty about how to get through their day and worried about tomorrow.
our concerns are understandable because we are not simply close neighbors, but as i have said many times, we are one people. you?what is that telling it suggests that if things don't get under control fairly soon, we may be seeing the next phase, which is an attempt, in a sense, to create one state for one people. like in other words, he would absorb -- >> in other words, he would absorb -- >> i think this is a speech that deals allegedly with crimea, but lays out a claim that can be asserted if things unfold in a way that provide opportunities. and it pertains particularly to edges oftorial ukraine, but also key of. -- kiev. question -- is
this the beginning again of the cold war? and is this your interpretation? >> it is not my interpretation. i just read excerpts. [laughter] >> i think this is not a return to the cold war. had a scratchy sinceonship with russia the cold war ended. and i think it will continue. but the cold war, i think, was pretty generous. and it evolved philosophies about the world, and the struggle for men's minds. this is not that kind of thing. this is much more practical. i think what is big red is very
interesting, because if there is anything that makes confused reading, it's the history of ukraine and russia. the first state of russia, had itsuce -- russ, in the firstev century. and they were driven up into the ,orests of the mongrels of asia who didn't mind trees and did not go after them. trees and not like did not go after them. it has been a different relationship than almost any other part of russia, at and/or the soviet union. i would say this is new. i learned a lot about food and
from what he said in the last few days -- about vladimir putin from what he said in the last few days. is a different person, a very different person from .orbachev, or even khrushchev of he has the outlook and who sawwas kgb the soviet union collapsed. person full of venom, because he talked of that -- he thought that collapse was taken advantage of by the west, or especially by the united states. russia, and take advantage of russia. as a matter of fact, he says,
when we were flat our backs at the end of the cold war, you walked all over us because you could. he denounced the adm treaty. he pushed the borders of nato right up into -- you push the borders of nato right up into the soviet union, because you could. now we are stronger and you cannot push us around anymore. there is that, that goes through it all. but i think to say that this is a new cold war is -- we could make it one, but i don't think it is going in that direction. >> roger. scowcrree with general you that in this instance, don't have the ideological concept that you had during the cold war. on the other hand, i think we should have taken president when a lot more seriously he described the breakup of the soviet union as the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century. that is a pretty memorable
phrase, because it was so extraordinarily unbelievable. i think many of us tended to laugh it away. seeinghink what we are now is that president putin is absolutely serious about .e-creating the soviet space and looking at it from the perspective of what has just we canng crimea, i think view the events of georgia in precursor, ad of trial run if you would like. let's see if the worst -- if the themreacts if i recognize as an independent state. in that case, he did not annex. then there were the medvedev years when it look like we might be able to treat russia as a normal country. and there has been this idea, the stream of the european space, or a eurasian space
bodyching from lisp and to toe scott -- from lisbon vladivostok. but he is bent on something ,lse, and alternative situation or something like it, to the west. and i think we have a highly combustible situation. i agree this could be the first move in ukraine, but much more dangerous is the fact that there are russian speakers in plenty of other states surrounding russia, notably estonia and lafayette. -- latvia. if anything were to begin to attack on, then an any nato member would be considered an attack on all. we are definitely into new territory. i don't think we are into a new
cold war, but we are into a new territory where we have to recognize that in moscow right now we have an adversary. we do not have a potential partner. >> dr. brezinski, what could or should we do now? we have to be concerned about what follows what has happened. in this speech has laid out a case that can be used for certain force directly against ukraine. might it disintegrate? secede?of ukraine and then what happens? suppose violence breaks out, what choices do we have? how can we react? i think we have to try to anticipate that possibility and consider it seriously. one way to anticipate it is to still try to somehow convey to putin that it is not our intent to seduce ukraine, to drive into
yet -- into nato, to turn it into a state that is openly, overtly hostile to russia. we have to work together in consolidating the recovery of ukraine economically and otherwise, because russia also has an interest in that, and so do we. and we and say to them, we will do it jointly. and of course, ukraine has a right to be european in spirit, but it is not going to be a member of the eu for years and years. and we can reassure you that it will not be a member of nato. but at the same time, we have to convey to the russians our concern that those words spoken areutin about ukraine terribly reminiscent of what hitler was saying about austria, which was then followed by the sudetenland and we know the rest of the history. that could be very serious in europe.
either we are passive in the face of a calamitous explosion, or maybe the ukraine will fall and simply repeat what happened in crimea. you also have to talk to the ukrainians about their response and what steps they are taking to make sure that their state remains viable. and we have to be willing to assist them if they are determined. in a sense, an accommodation if possible, deterrence of the conflict if necessary. i would not treat this lightly. i think there is a spirit in putin's speech that is vengeful and triumphalist at the same time, and committed as mr. cohen notion of thishe new union, which is actually an old name, and empire with the capital in moscow. russians, ad of the
former member of the communist party in cosmic stan, now president of has expand -- of is issuingan warnings about independent state in the region. openly sawistan that, and so forth. -- and whose pakistan --uzbe openly, and sos forth. crossed -- dr. do you think the sanctions have had any impact? >> i think we have done the minimum that we needed to do. we will see what happens now. i agree with much of what he just said. misjudged putin.
as i say, he was filled with venom at the united states at the end of the cold war, but he's not a dumb man. he's a smart man. he hadhought that after ruled for a while, and after medvedev had his turn as president, that putin would see that they got a lot farther with sugar than he was getting with vinegar and that he would change. he hasn't. and that tells you more about him and we need to worry about it. also, about the soviet union and how it felt, it is important to remember that in 1991 when the -- it union broke up,
cannot remember who was head of belarus. shut -- up to take his job away from him. plays into putin's determination here. and i think we need to be, when we talk about the sanctions we put on, i think we need to be positive, careful, , like putin is sort of getting. said we, dr. brezinski should talk to him and explained to him about how we really feel about ukraine. will you listen, in your view?
or has he already got an agenda? >> i think he already had a chance to listen. as far as i recall, secretary of state kerry flew to london just a few days ago on the eve of all of this and had several hours of the russian foreign minister and they produced precisely nothing. i think president putin had decided a while back on this course and he has executed it. this is grave. this is the first act of annexation in europe since the second world war. another word for an ignition, of course -- for annexation, of course, is an insurance -- augnshutz. we could see if someone west.d
certainly, asia does not look like such a good idea right now. when i looked down the sanctions list, these are pretty much second level characters. is not a casehere for taking sanctions at this point right up to the very summit. at thecall correctly, conference in bucharest in 2008 where there was a lot of discussion of putting georgia on a track to nato membership, the russians, prudent, warned that utin,would have -- p warned that this would have serious consequences. and as a result, we held back. what happened? three months later, despite this concession -- i'm not sure that this is a man who listens to concessions, who sees
concessions. what is his language echo his language is strength -- what is his language? his language is strength. ms we respond to his strength with our own form of strength, you end up losing. and that, i think is the situation we are in today. >> what can we really do you cope next if i may -- what can we really do? the bottom line is enlargement, the enlargement of the european union at least. i think we cannot take from a scout a veto of whether -- take from moscow a veto of whether countries in eastern europe can be part of the european union. give him aneed to sense of a better option. there are people in russia who are very worried about what is happening. there are 50,000 people in the brutal regime demonstrating against this for just two days ago. they are worried.
we can convey to put and you can have a deal that is reassuring, but it is no victory for you. secondly, we have to consider the serious possibility in view of what he said that he will try the crimean operation in ukraine itself. with one important distinction. the crimean operation was premised on quick deniability. if something went wrong, and all of a sudden there was a lot of resistance, he could say, we never attacked. these guys were not mind. forget it. it was some sort of local incident. in ukraine. that they're easy during cajun or there is not. and i think we need to talk to the ukrainians -- they are in ukraine or they are not. and i think we need to talk to the ukrainians seriously. are they really prepared to defend their territory? because if they are, we should make it even more clear to putin , don't plunge into that adventure because that can have
serious consequences. thei would not tell ukrainians, since they have already asked us for military resistance, that we are willing to provide our prepackaged .ilitary food >> meals. >> yes, which we have told them. that is so far our contribution to their event. i think we should indicate that we are not going to be at war and we are not committed to war, but if you resist, you will certainly gain the sympathy of the west will stop just as finland did in 1940 when stalin attacked. that creates pressure to do more. the net becomes something that putin has to consider. a war atally undertake this stage, given the state of his economy? which is very bad, and still in the relative state of his military, which is still being years itd -- in future
will be in much better shape, but right now, i do not think this is something a putin would welcome. either the break up of ukraine or some upheaval in ukraine. we have to assure him in some kind of convincing fashion that it is not going to happen because it is not in our interest, too. but do you think that the germans will go -- >> do you think that the germans will go along with sanctions? >> i think they are more likely now than when the crisis first started. part of the problem has been that we have both the u.s. and europeans being lazy about this whole thing. offer for aan relationship with ukraine. it was a little bit here, a little bit there, maybe some of this, maybe some of that. it did not amount to anything. hooton turns around and offers them a $15 billion loan.
what the united states could have done at that time, and i think should have done, is to say, look, ukraine's economy is in terrible shape. let us, the united states, the eu, and russia, put together a ukraineof assistance to to start them out. get them going again. i don't know if it would have worked, but we are now assuming that what we've got to do is match them belligerence by belligerence by belligerence. up,that may be where we end but i don't think we ought to start there. comment.one other ukraine has a very interesting state. it is not just a country. it is three countries -- well, to if you take out crimean now.
you take out crimean now. crimea is for all intents and purposes russian. other populations have been driven out. then there is eastern ukraine, roughly half, that is primarily of russian extraction. ukraine which has a long history with poland, lithuania, austria. there are very different kinds of evolutions here. when you say, ukraine this and ukraine met that, what is it you are talking about? and there may be one thing that putin has not calculated right. he has changed the relative balance of the populations. crimea was russian.
and now that is out of the mix. the balance between the two that are left is much closer. and remember, putin has also said that there was a who -- a coup against the president, yanukovych, who was a russian student. i don't ever what i was going to say now -- i don't remember what i was going to say now -- >> you are right. [laughter] is aw the government government of primarily west ukraine. and that is different. and putin sees that difference and what he says is, use throughout yanukovych -- you throughout yanukovych and put in your fascist. but let me just say -- >> let me just say something. does this have anything to do
with how the united states is now perceived in the world? >> i think it does, to some degree. hooton had the perception that he could get away with this. becomelantic system has an almost quaint term. it is so 20th century. who cares about that? thepolls, lithuanians, -- want, lithuanians, they nato protection for some reason. who knows why? and i think there was a sense not only of that division, but the united states where the operative word is "retrenchment." the united states has been through too painful wars and wants to look after its own for a while. and while i don't think there is any direct link, i do think it is a matter of great concern
when the united states of in syriaet a red line on the issue of chemical weapons and walks all the way up to the response called for by that redline, and then is seen as a -- abbey last minute to step back from nap i think that sends a message around the world. something that people immediately forget. i'm not saying there is a direct causal link. of i think there is a sense disunity and weakness. and on that basis, president putin, who is a man whose psychology understand above all, force, strength, brutality when necessary, i think that gave him a kind of green light. did in crimea -- i covered the war in bosnia. this is exactly what resident the loss of it did in bosnia. serbian troops in bosnia?
are you talking about? there was an attempt at plausible deniability. you could see it. and you've still got these guys, now, today, these terrible photographs of the ukrainian army and neighbor walking out of their barracks with their hands up. and with soldiers pointing their machine guns at them, who are in camouflage. and no identifiable insignia. what is this? >> dr. brezinski, does this have anything to do with how the united states is perceived, rightly or wrongly? >> probably, up to a point, yes. and even right now, i'm a bit surprised with all that is that the president of the united states has not spoken to the country about the problem, has inputted into the larger context -- has not put it into the larger context. he gave the statement about these men loneliest -- these
minimalist sanctions and then walked out of the room. he did not say anything to the american people. i don't think there is that much clarity yet about our position. i hope it sharpens. >> i want to hear from general scowcroft on this, too. if you are the national security adviser, what would you do? >> i would, one, still make an attempt to see that the russians receive a larger accommodation with regard to ukraine, and a generous and balanced one. but also to make sure that the ukrainians know what they are going to do and are prepared to do it. and if push comes to shove, start indicating rather heavily that we will not be passive. and on that subject, let's and -- let's not exaggerate the divisions in ukraine. there are some russians in ukraine, but the russian speaking ukraine are not russian. they are like the swiss. the swiss are either german or french. neither one is planning to join france or germany.
[laughter] and look at some key people. one of the new horlick figures -- new hero it figures did not even speak ukrainian a few months ago. he spoke mostly russian. but he has picked it up in this current situation. thomas tango, the great enemy of shenko, the -- timo great enemy of yana kovacic am i before not speak much this. and now she speaks russian. they were denied their national identity for a long, long time. but since the 19th century, they started evolving and developing and acquiring a spirit of its own and its own history. they, for example, reject the -- kiev beingof russian.
it is of their descendents. it was greek orthodox. it was not russian orthodox. most people ignore that. they are asserting their own identity and claiming their own history. and it was a dispute on the subject between them and the russians. but putin said not just this time, but previously, ukraine is not a nation. russia and ukraine are one nation. the majority of ukrainians reject that. you advise the president right now, general? as i said, i think the president ought to offer what he has not offered yet, which is that we put together a program for ukraine and see if we can move away from the direction we are going back to where the problem started. i don't know if it will work. that hooton does
think weputin does have lost our will. i sort of doubt it, but there are a lot of indications to the contrary. and i think we need to her remember we need to discuss these points with the russians. if there is to be progress with syria, for example, it would be nice if rush and the u.s. for on the same page. iran, the russians have been basically supporting -- supportive of iran. it is not as if this is a cold war waiting to break out. warmve had -- not relationships, but they have not been bad everywhere. it seems to me if we can pull this out of the fire, at least give it one more chance to see
putin -- to see the way his mind works. roger, you had a terrific piece in the times this week about the parallels of this. how dangerous is the situation right now? >> i wrote that because it is the centennial, obviously, of the outbreak of world war i. the the prince shot archduke in sarajevo, he was trying to secure the liberty of the south slavs from an imperial . and of course, president clinton is trying to revive -- president putin is trying to revive some russian form of in. on.of imperia
and many who are feeling passionately and indignant about , andhas just happened while it is true if you like three ukraine, it is also true that one ukraine was recognized him and its borders recognized by president hooton in 1994 when he said, give up your nuclear weapons. that was formal recognition of the borders that have just been trampled upon by president putin. i don't want to be alarmist, and i absolutely agree that the iran is a critical one, is important. everything has to be calibrated. but this is a sea change. it is a new ballgame. and i think the situation is combustible, both within the ukraine if president couldn't --
putin chooses to go any further, and potentially in the baltic states where tensions run very high about being ruled from moscow. and i know that president biden -- vice president biden has just been there to reassure them, but if any incident -- as we have just seen, as the outbreak of world war i illustrated, it was a 19-year-old kid who precipitated that cataclysm. we don't know what the spark might be. far morenk this is a dangerous situation than many people imagine. go to the audience. i will just stop right here. you, sir. is there a microphone? here comes the microphone right here. no, that the camera. there it is. microphone, over here.
>> do you think that snowden has byisted putin in any way t supplying any ways of collection that we have in ukraine or surrounding countries that could compromise a response? >> i didn't understand. >> snowden, whether snowden. >> did snowden supply the russians with some kind of intelligence that might have compromised us in some way? >> there is no way to know -- to answer that without knowing what he has or has given to the russians. i don't know what he has. >> [inaudible]
>> it is more than one country. but i don't think we know what he has and what he has given to the russians. right here. >> back to what you were saying a moment ago about this being a game changer. americana has been the legacy of the postwar. timeframe, and its fundamental principle was the sanctity of borders. this has been blown away, for all of the reasons that you gentlemen have explain quite well, the history, the the russian empire, the ukraine. we all understand and i think we can have sympathy over the fact that most of the crimean's are ethnic russians. however, as you pointed out, -- the treatyeaty
of budapest, i believe -- in which the united states and russia guaranteed the ukrainian borders. now this principle has been blown away. i think president obama is trying to say, wait a minute, you cannot do this and you cannot get away with it. what have you explained -- we do not have that many options. but if this principle of the sanctity of borders, which is at the foundation of peace in europe, is blown away, then what? what will the united states be able to do to repair this? likely now, we are most going to allow this to happen because there will not be any going back, i believe. in other words, putin is not going to give back crimea to ukraine. then the principal of saint he is -- sanctity of borders has been infringed. is that an issue of great consequence, or can we just let this go? >> i don't think it is an issue --that great of calm
consequence. and we did not think so either with respect to kosovo, which is a similar sort of action. fact, we used force to try to make it happen. i don't think that is a fundamental issue. >> i think it could be a fundamental issue. but i agree with brent that it is not yet. very simple reason. the ukrainians did not resist in crimea. they be they couldn't, but they didn't. and that makes it very different. because it was a kind of complaints is the -- complacency or accommodation on their part. i am much more concerned with what putin is saying, that there is going to be a challenge to the integrity and independence of ukraine. that would be very different. >> the lady in the back. my question is simple and
short. how safe might georgia be in this given situation and new development? 's fartherect russia expansion through the military? >> i did not understand. >> could you identify your self again? >> maja kate, voice of america. it was very difficult for us. the sound is muffled. >> [indiscernible] >> we know who she is. what is the question? [laughter] maybe if you would come up here. i'm sorry to ask you to do this. >> thank you come again. maja kate, voice of america, georgian service. my question is, can we expect russia's farther expansion militarily towards georgia? how safe might georgia be? >> the question is, how safe
should georgia feel? sign -- i talked to a couple of georgians who attended a conference. they do not feel safe. they do not feel in the least bit safe. in fact, they feel threatened. and of course, those kinds of , whether rational or irrational, it doesn't come into it. and if you are afraid, you are afraid. and when you've already lost 20% of your territory, which georgia has, and you see what is happening crimea, and you see both the eu and nato basically slamming on the brakes whenever anybody mentions and me notion of georgia coming into the eu or nato, you think, well, what is our future here? we've got president putin up there eyeing us.
and to the west, which is the direction we want to go, and it is a very disturbing situation for georgia. i do not expect president putin to move on georgia today, tomorrow, or this year. but that possibility is there, and he knows it's there. that is the way he wants it to be. question, i to your do think it is a serious change. kos of oh was not annexed -- kos ovo was not annexed. it was 90% albanian and it became independent after a bloody war across from yugoslavia that went on for a decade. this is not the place to go into all of that, but i don't think it is a precise parallel. i'm sure many of you read
president putin's long piece in my newspaper. at the time of the syrian conflict, where he was saying the only thing we have between the world and the abyss is the rule of law, the sanctity of borders, the centrality of the u.n. security council. international law is the only humanon which to conduct affairs. orwellian does not begin to describe it. >> doyle mcmanus from the "los ."geles times i would like to sharpen the question on what the united states is prepared to do if the ukraine says it is prepared to resist further russian incursion into its territory from the east and south. it seems to be a bit of a chicken and egg problem here. their decision on what they are
prepared to do may depend on their understanding of how much support they have. dr. brezinski, you suggested that amari cost to not seen quite enough to stop -- that mre's are not quite enough. we can provide nonlethal equipment and air cover. -- we can provide nonlethal equipment him a lethal equipment, and air cover. there is the escalation. what should we do? should havese, we contingency planning for all of that post up but we should couple that with a serious communication to the russians in which we would like an alternative outcome in which we would like to be partners. but we need to let ukraine know that if they resist, they will not be alone. theo not need to let russians know exactly what we are going to do. but the death of the pudding is also in the ukrainians.
they need to demonstrate that they value their territorial integrity and are prepared to make sacrifices to protect it. i think the russians, the way they have operated in crimea, where- as i said before, they are operating on a contingent basis. if there is a lot of resistance, we pull back. the same may happen in ukraine as well, particularly those district where there are some theyan people living and are demonstrating and so forth. the ukrainians themselves, first of all, have to take some clear positions regarding what they intend to do with some degree of credibility. otherwise if we don't do it, that i think we really are on the path to grievous instability twoother acts totaling over georgia. azerbaijan, the russians have a score to settle with azerbaijanis.
there are large populations that could be the object of several explosions with hatred and conflict. you open up the gate. our job is to reduce the scope of uncertainty by commitment and clarity and willingness to compromise on an intelligent level. but that also means the president has to take a visible position and speak seriously to the american people about the problem that we confront, that we and our allies confront jointly. merkel's speech is a hopeful indication that more and europeans are beginning to realize we are in this together. >> anybody else want to talk about that?
>> i have a question for all of the panelists. that if the eunt and the u.s. failed to take measures, will china be encouraged to do the same thing in its neighborhood? secondly, [indiscernible] suffer from the crimean crisis? clicks if i heard it all, i -- >> if i heard it all, i will start out. i think the chinese sympathies probably lag more with the russians. but i do not think they're going to enter, because they are ofical on the issue territories being shifted around , for example, to that. i don't think you'll find the
chinese standing up and shouting for the russians. >> anyone else? roger? the second part of the question, it is hard to understand exactly what was meant. it was a phrase and it has floated out there and there have been meetings about it. it is not altogether clear, to me, at least, what it has meant. president putin has presented the west with is a for looking again at the transatlantic alliance, looking again at the defense budget, looking again at the fact that the european so safe and is not secure that we can simply transfer our attention elsewhere. a very china has ambivalent response to what has happened. it doesn't like mortars changing.
-- borders changing. they have abstained. that is an indication. not expect a scenario of world war iii. i do not expect some chinese move on taiwan or something like that. >> write-down here in the second row. right down here in the second row. >> i am from the iss. there is another country that has a common border with an eu member and a nato member, and which has an agreement with eu, and that is, moldova. and mold of -- and mold all the has its own crimea, which is now asking russia to become part of the russian federation. a games again -- beginning out between russia and to ana to get moldova
exchange --reign for an exchange of that being part of russia. tot should we be doing now prevent that particular domino from falling? because if it does, then you will have the problem for russia of territorial continuity between russia ministry and rushing crimea. and that happens to be the southern borderlands of ukraine. you may not have time to prepare that mac -- that package of measures, which you told us about. if i may, just one remark. the leverage we may think russia has vis-à-vis us on iran and and theran member -- panel were members, that during the cold war, we were able to
cooperate on the issues of chemical and nuclear proliferation. simply not going to stop because we're going to have a big problem with russia. russia has permanent interests in doing on what is doing -- in doing what it is doing on iran. if we get into a new cold war, it is not going to stop russia from continuing to talk with us on iran. >> i agree with you on iran aspect. as far as moldova is concerned, there is another factor involved here, geography. if ukraine does not go the wrong way, the russians will not be able to pull that off. and if necessary, we and the ukrainians can deal with it. if ukraine falters, the problem is, of course mold of a, but the bigger problem is ukraine itself. strategic issue right now. how the ukraine's play at? it? will the russians play
what can we do to be clear-cut in our relationship with the ukrainian? >> american university in moscow. my question is for zbigniew brzezinski. what is your opinion on the nazi factor in ukraine? powerful? is immeasurable? or is it just russian propaganda? >> there probably are some in-nazis, more accurately, the ukraine. they are a very minor group. very similar in that respect to some neo-nazis in russia, who seem to be a little more visible actually, and even have a very prominent philosopher supporting them and instructing on that basis, mr. putin as to what his vision of the world ought to be. i think you know what i'm referring to. >> we have not called anybody on this site over here. right there.
look to your right. >> i'm mark seibold with mcclatchy newspapers. -- two quick questions. one, i'm wondering if any of you are surprised that putin moved into crimea. some people say we should have realized it all along, and others say, of course we were surprised. i'm curious what your personal situation was. there has been a lot of discussion about nato and how this finally brings nato back to having a purpose. thinkrious whether you the initial response on behalf of nato and the united states sending up a half-dozen planes to poland, that sort of thing, if that is muscular enough to make an impression. >> roger? surprised in the endgame, if you like. i think the germans have very
good antenna in russia, and i spoke to a senior guy at the guess, ministry there, i two weeks before the annexation. he is a fairly prudent guy and he said, our impression -- and the foreign minister had just been to moscow. his impression was, he's going to go all the way. i don't think we can stop him. and i was surprised then. i said, really? these movies that reminded me very much of belgrade and what i witnessed in belgium. of course, the parallel is not exact. i was not surprised right at the end. in terms of the same question about the nato response, president obama is about to go to europe. he is going to brussels, i believe, for the first time very
soon, this month. the one thing i would say is that i think it is absolutely be -- thatat there this trip be well-prepared and that there be a strong, united, vigorous statement about what has occurred. think, ina mention, i president obama statement to article five of the nato treaty. but it came well down the list. i think it could have been higher up the list, just as i think the people sanctioned could have been of a more said gibbons -- of a more significant level. were you surprised echo >> yes, i was surprised. i was surprised how essentially nonviolent the russians were able to pull it off. it was well planned.
surprised that the ukrainians there did not offer some sort of resistance. >> could we, should we have known about it? >> if we had paid attention, yes. but we were not paying attention. ukraine has had several elections. they have gone with the western part, the eastern part. timoshenko was put in jail. this is a country that has been troubled for a while. no, we have not paid attention to it. and i think we probably could have avoided had we been on top of the problem when it first started with the ukrainians and the eu. to say we'm sorry have come to the end of our program. but before you go, we have one other thing we have -- want to take note of.
'sday is general scowcroft birthday. [applause] [laughter] [applause] >> i'm sorry. i don't do birthdays anymore. [laughter] >> well, there is cake for everybody here and it will lead behind you as you leave. thank you all for coming and thanks from tcu. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
>> look for this and other events on ukraine later today in our programs schedule, and of course, online at www.c-span.org . in ukrainetervention was also discussed in the british parliament today. here is an exchange between prime >> i thank the prime minister about that answer. i like to ask him about the meetings coming up. the white house indicated their sanctions will be expanded and i'm sure the whole house will idea that the list f ukrainian russian officials will also be extended. circumstances in which you'll be supporting additional wider eek no, ma'am oeubg and the russian ns on federation? >> as we discussed previously european union set out clear triggers. we said that the russians did quan tact rt in a